In this guest opinion, independent researcher Mo Stewart identifies the ease with which public behaviour can be manipulated and changed by government when aided by the press

It is the welfare service users’ behaviour that government seeks to change with government policy when linked to harsh sanctions. But, in reality, public opinion and behaviour has also changed when influenced by political rhetoric.

Behaviour change is not difficult to achieve when there is full access to the national press and media and when unfounded political claims, which are guaranteed to be reported, can manipulate public opinion. Over time ­this eventually creates a behaviour change in society.

This has come to pass in recent years within state-funded welfare in the UK. Welfare reform, together with austerity measures introduced by the Coalition government in 2010, and the preventable harm created by government knowingly demonising claimants of long-term disability benefit by suggesting widespread welfare benefit fraud, now sees welfare dependent chronically ill and profoundly disabled service users living in fear of the British government and the British press. In reality, the published government figures have demonstrated welfare fraud at 0.7%, not 75% as claimed in the national press to influence public opinion.

The political manipulation of public opinion was at its most fierce during the Coalition government’s term in office, for five years from 2010. As the introduction of austerity was destined to cause distress, so it was necessary for the government to offer the public someone else to blame. The very easy targets of a quickly evolved political smear campaign were the long-term chronically ill and disabled people, who were totally dependent upon welfare funding for their financial survival.

This relentless political attack against those in greatest need was created to suggest that the UK could no longer justify the welfare budget, that following the 2008 banking crisis suddenly the UK was required to ‘live within our means’, with the suggestion that the public sector deficit should be completely removed. In reality, this situation was planned many years ago to justify the eventual removal of the welfare state en route to the adoption of private healthcare insurance. The banking crisis was the excuse needed to introduce policies which are identified as the legacy of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Fed by rhetoric by the Coalition government, sections of the national press provided banner headlines insisting that 75% of claimants ‘languishing on the state’ were faking, and this relentless government smear campaign worked very well. There was a reported 213% increase in prosecuted disability hate crimes during the Coalition government’s term in office, which the national press willingly reported. But they disregarded any responsibility they may have had from demonising service users and suggesting that the majority of benefit dependent disabled people were unworthy of state financial support. This behaviour by people who felt able to commit disability hate crime was not unexpected, and was inevitable following the successful smear campaign supported by the majority of the national press over a sustained period.

Grave societal outcomes with large social financial inequity were guaranteed during austerity measures which were identified as being based on political propaganda, and totally unnecessary. Academics noted that the austerity measures were adopted by right-leaning governments, and not by others. This gave way to the confirmation that austerity measures were a political choice and not a financial necessity when introduced without any ethical approval.

At the same time as this travesty of justice was being created, chronically ill and profoundly disabled people, who had been deemed by all previous medical and administrative opinion as being unfit to work, were suddenly all under suspicion. In a measure masquerading as welfare reform, all 2.8 million claimants of Incapacity Benefit were to be reassessed while being migrated to the new Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), as introduced in 2008 by the New Labour government. In order to qualify for the new ESA, all welfare dependent chronically sick and disabled people were required to submit to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The scope of the assessment was increased in 2010 and coincided with the introduction of austerity measures. State crime by proxy began in earnest as corporate welfare crime was created.

The relentless claims that a majority of welfare claimants were unworthy, as regularly promoted by Conservative politicians and sections of the national press, witnessed a behaviour change towards sick and disabled people with concern and empathy replaced with suspicion. Even drivers using blue badges for access to disabled parking could be harassed by onlookers.

These behaviour changes in society were created by neoliberal politics, with materialistic individualism blessed as a virtue, with an acceptance of tolerated harshness. This legacy of greed meant that there was ‘no such thing as society’ and the sense of community evaporated as demonstrated by total indifference to human need.

One Response to Demonising disabled people: public behaviour and attitudes during welfare reforms

It beggers belief in the UK that this kind of bullying and demoralising of those who already suffer enough has been allowed to continue for this long. Just imagine: a student takes an interest in medicine and wishes to work with those amazing individuals that are our NHS, they achieve good GCSE, attend college for 2 years and then 3 years at university.WEATHER this student wants to be a general practioner or continue with more study and specialise in one of the many departments across the NHS. The government simply says: we dont care for your education, we dont care if you have spent half your life becoming a specialist in the field of mental health or bone disease etc. We dont care that you are truly more qualified than anyone in the government to advise and treat these issues. We are going to glance over your reccomendations and void any sick note you have signed.We are going to force you to put part of your busy day aside so you can fill out our forms and answer our questions. We are then going to totally ignore anything you say. Although we don’t believe a person has an illness unless you sign the sick note but it then has no value. The claimant has to provide them regularly otherwise basic money is stopped yet we don t believe what they say and we think that BOB, who worked in the local supermarket all his life until he fancied a change and applied for a job with ATOS, is in the ideal position to tell a claimant that the combination of problems they face and the mountain of evidence they have provided as to their struggle not to mention the side effects of the various medications they HAVE to take, is an excuse and in no way a legitimate reason as to why they cant accept a job 25 miles away from their home for 3 hours a day with no wheel chair access. BOB will make a note of how the claimant is dressed, if they have sweaty hands, and if they can communicate like they have half a brain obviously BOB will then include his own interpretations including commenting on gender, race, age and sexuality and his report will decisde if you are actually disabled and deserve to be paid a pitance or you should just stop moaning and get a job.

Conference

Latest Comments

You also have an exact and clear idea of how all this affects people who are actually caught up in it. Unfortunately, the people who are responsible for these policies and decisions have never had to deal with it so there is no understanding and no empathy. We are losing our humanity in today's society.

Why would people then bother to make a home and spend money on it? We have to get away from this mindset that has now taken hold that Social Housing.....hate that term, is just temporary to suit your immediate needs. People should not have to up sticks all the time because a child gets older etc. When the old system was in place ie older people with larger homes than they needed they were offered incentives to downsize. In the 90's more Older peoples accommodation was built. Bungalows, Sheltered Housing etc. People were given help with removal costs. This has all changed. To make someone move from a home they have been in for years is cruel if it is not voluntary. I have been in my home since it was built. My daughter moved out as she should when grown up to make her own home. So after 23 years with roots well and truly down, should I be made to move? I have my granddaughter to stay. My daughter's room is now for her and was also an office when I worked from home. I could not fit my home into a small 1 bedroom flat. I do not want people living above me. This idea that if you live in Social Housing it is just accommodation but if you own it is your home is totally wrong. My parents moved willingly into Sheltered Housing but the change affected them drastically. My dad became stressed and ill and died a year later and my mother never settled and died a few years later. This was because they uprooted themselves and left their home and all the memories and familiar surroundings. Unfortunately like most issues these days, the humanity is being taken out of it.

Great resources on linking welfare sanction and conditionally and key social policy considerations with human rights principles (including dignity, non-discrimination). These considerations have a huge impact in narratives around poverty and vulnerability, and should be closely looked at by policy decision-makers and street-level bureaucrats.

Ok. I don’t agree with the bedroom tax but I do feel it would be a better option if housing rules were changed. For example why do they wait until kids are over 10 until giving families two bedrooms?
Then I also think housing should be fit for purpose so I believe when they move someone from a one bedroom to a 2 or 3 it should be with the understanding only until the children grow up and leave home then they should have their Tennancy moved back to something more suitable again like a one bedroom.

A fine well written and clear example of what is broken in our welfare system.
They are asking for submission for the next select committee meeting on welfare and I would submit this post if it were my choice.
It is a vicious cycle for some who have no chance of finding work however hard they might try. It is the employers who ultimately make the decision if employees are fit and ready to work, not the DWP.
Having a budget of £2 per day for food , job searching activities, keeping your appearance and strength up, and having to jump through hoops and tick boxes on all those strength zapping, soul destroying schemes courses and programs that do nothing but heap yet even more pressure and stress.
The affects of stress on both mental and physical health are well documented and nothing can be more stressful than not knowing week in, week out, that your hand to mouth existence is constantly at risk.
Sanctions are death sentences for some, no getting away from that fact, those charged with administrating the regime should hang their heads in shame, it is those who should make the stand to bring about change.
Or do they deceive themselves into believing long time shirker Jim who they sanctioned last month and who has not been seen again at the local JCP, Is now enjoying the fruits of his labor thanks to the Works Coaches helpful push they so desperately needed.
So clearly sanctions work and a good done job done by me, high five everyone.